Dickinson, Sherwood of Talbot. Colston, James
U. Dennis, Crisfield, Dashiell, Williams, Hodson,
Phelps, Chambers of Cecil, Tuck, McCubbin,
George, Wright, McMaster, Fooks, Jacobs,
Thomas, Carter, Thawley, Stewart of Caroline,
Davis, Kilgour, Brewer and Waters—43.
So this branch of the amendment was re-
jected.
The next division of the amendment was stat-
ed to be as follows:
"And to the city of Baltimore a representation
not larger than that given to the largest coun-
ty."
And the question having been taken,
The result was as follows:
Affirmative—Messrs. Chapman, President, Mor-
gan, Blakistone, Dent, Hopewell, Ricaud, Lee,
Chambers of Kent, Dorsey, Wells, Kent, Weems,
Bond, John Dennis, James U. Dennis, Crisfield,
Dashiell, Williams, Hodson, Phelps, McCubbin,
McMaster, Fooks, Jacobs, Sappington, Nelson,
Carter, Fiery, John Newcomer, Kilgour and
Waters-31.
Negative—Messrs. Donaldson, Sollers, Mer-
rick, Jenifer, Buchanan, Bell, Welch, Chandler,
Ridgely, Lloyd, Dickinson, Sherwood of Talbot,
Colston, Constable, Chambers of Cecil, Miller,
McLane, Tuck, George, Wright, Thomas,
Shriver, Gaither, Biser, Annan, McHenry, Ma-
graw, Thawley, Stewart of Caroline, Gwinn,
Stewart of Baltimore city, Sherwood of Balti-
more city, Presstman, Ware, Neill, Harbine,
Michael Newcomer, Brewer, Weber, Slicer,
Fitzpatrick, Parke, Shower and Brown—44.
So this branch of the amendment was re-
jected.
The question was then stated to he on the
adoption of the resolution as amended.
Mr. MERRICK remarked, there was no manner
of use in instructing the committee on represen-
tation, to bring in the report contemplated by this
proposition, as such a report had already been
brought in. He, therefore, moved a re-consideration
of the vote adopting the first branch of the
amendment.
Mr. NEILL concurred in the propriety of this
suggestion.
The question, "will the Convention reconsider
the said vote?" was taken,
And decided in the negative, without a divi-
sion.
So the vote was not re-considered.
Some conversation followed on a point of order
as to the state of the question under the several
votes given by the Convention, when
The SECRETARY, under instructions from the
PRESIDENT, read the minutes of the journal, to
show the exact position in which the votes of the
Convention had left the question.
Mr. MERRICK now again called the attention
of the Convention to the fact, that, under the ex-
isting state of the question, the reference of
such instructions to the committee was a mere
repetition of what had already been done. The
committee on representation had already made a
report, providing for the election of one senator
from each of the counties, and one from the city

of Baltimore. Was it not childish to be doing
that which had already been done?
The PRESIDENT. That if a question which
the Convention must decide for itself.
Mr. MERRICK, continuing. The gentleman
from Kent, (Mr. Chambers,) and the gentleman
from Talbot, (Mr. Lloyd,) have both reported
projets like this, and I will ask whether it is con-
sistent with the dignity and the character of this
body, thus to multiply reports and propositions
identically the same?
Mr. SPENCER, (to the chair.) Is this in or-
der?
Some conversation followed.
Mr. MERRICK. I move a re-consideration of
the vote.
Mr. THOMAS, (to the chair.) Is the motion
debateable?
The PRESIDENT. It is not. The previous
question is not yet exhausted.
Mr. THOMAS. I ask the yeas and nays on the
motion to re-consider.
Some further conversation followed on & point
of order, in which Messrs. BROWN, MCLANE,
THOMAS , and the PRESIDENT took part, after which
The question was taken on the resolution as
amended, and it was adopted.
The question then recurred on the motion to
reconsider, (the previous question being exhaust-
ed)
Mr. MERRICK recapitulated the State of the
question, and remarked that nothing remained of
the proposition before the Convention, but the
first branch instructing the committee on repre-
sentation to report a bill giving one Senator to-
each county and to the city of Baltimore. This
proposition had already been passed upon affir-
matively. He moved, therefore, a re-consider-
ation, for the reason that it was idle, and worse
than idle, in his judgment, to give instructions to
a committee to do that which two of its mem-
bers had already done. He hoped, therefore,
that the reconsideration would be agreed to.
The mover himself, (Mr. Jacobs,) had suggested
that this course ought to be pursued.
Some further conversation followed on a point
of order between Mr. CHAMBERS, of Kent, and
the PRESIDENT.
Mr. JENIFER said, that he should not himself
have been in favor of moving such a proposition;
but the resolution had been adopted, and a mo-
tion to reconsider might leave the committee in
an uncertain and embarrassed state, looking to
their conflicting views upon this question of re-
presentation. He should, therefore, vote against
the re-consideration—because the resolution it-
self embraced a principle which he intended to
support. The instruction, he thought, was a
guard; it settled at least the point that there was
to be one Senator to the city and to each county.
The committee on representation had come to no
conclusion. They could not agree, and the ques-
tion was, whether the Convention would adopt
its own views, or refer the matter to the com-
mittee without instructions. If it was to go to the
committee at all, let it be accompanied with in-
structions.